Re: cortex / arm-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi (was Re: armelfp: new architecture name for an armel variant)
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:40:11PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > (BTW... if you want to run both armel and armhf under multiarch... which
> > package's libc gets to own ld.so? :P)
>
> I understand ld.so can be wherever we want, since it's part of the
> executables, but I understand you're asking which architecture gets to
> own whatever /lib/ld-linux.so.2 is, since there's only one of them and
> we want to preserve compatibility with non-Debian binaries, right?
>
> On my amd64 system, /bin/rm points at /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 for
> an interpreter (*cough* /lib64) but on an armel system, it points at
> /lib/ld-linux.so.3, and on i386 system /lib/ld-linux.so.2 so perhaps we
> can expect 64-bits arches to have a suffix while 32-bits arches so that
> one could leave ld-linux to 32-bits arches and use the suffix for
> 64-bits arches? No idea whether there's a general rule for this
>
It's not a general rule. For example, 32-bit sparc is /lib/ld-linux.so.2
while 64-bit sparc is /lib64/ld-linux.so.2.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: